Sunday, September 18, 2011

The Khan Academy Promotes Theological Naturalism

A friend pointed out that over at the Khan Academy, Salman Khan, while assuring his students he is not taking sides, seems to have been channeling such luminaries as John Ray and Alfred Wallace as he informs them that god would never design or create the particulars of this world. Khan—who has four degrees from MIT and Harvard and is certain that evolution and its natural selection created the entire biological world—assures the viewer that “You can ask any engineer” and they will tell you that simple laws underlying a complex design, as exemplified by the Mandelbrot set, is the better way. Of course non of this comes directly from Ray or Wallace—what this illustrates is not a homologous doctrine, but rather the independent origin and persistence of theological traditions. The infra dignatatum argument appears and reappears in the history of thought not because it derives from a single teacher, but because we like it. Here then, we present the 21st century’s version of this age-old tradition within theological naturalism:

[4:19] A belief in god would not point to a god who—a belief in a universal, all-powerful god, would not point to a god who designs the particular—who designs each particular. And even more, the imperfections we see around us—and especially because we see variation and they’re being selected for—we can’t just focus on the eye, we’d have to focus on viruses and cancers and it would have to speak to a god who is designing one-off every version of every sequence of DNA. Because if someone talks about designing the eye, we know the eye is the by product of DNA, and we know that DNA is a sequence of base pairs, ATGCA, billions and billions of them, and so when we talk about design, we would be talking literally about designing the sequence, and we even know there is some noise in there, that comes from primitive viruses in there deep in our past. So the argument I’m making here is that in order to give credit to the all-powerful, at least to my mind, a system that comes from very simple, elegant and basic ideas—like natural selection and variations; in our DNA we call those mutations, but the laws of physics and chemistry, from those simple and elegant and basic ideas, for complexity to emerge. …

This speaks to a higher form of design, this speaks to a more profound design. …

This idea of the laws of physics and chemistry and natural selection … This is a very profound design, and it speaks to the art of the designer. As opposed to designing each of these entities, one off. And what is even more profound about the design is that it is adaptive. If there is environmental stress, then the other variations survive more frequently. … That to me is a better design.

32 comments:

Of course an all knowing designer who uses evolution to create, as evidenced by the imperfections in the world, wouldn't know what evolution would come up with. Therefore our all knowing creator did not create imperfections. Isn't there a contradiction there?

Of course lots of time leads to complexity from random mutations. We see original complex entities springing forth all the time, not. And lets not forget about the millions of missing links in the fossil record.

Also, there are so many functional arrangements of molecules and the chemistry of life is so simple, we know that the origin and increasing complexity of life is a no brainer. Every engineer knows that, not..

Surely this is video is an attempt to float the idea of a God who works THROUGH evolution. In short, the ideas of God and evolution are not necessarily at odds.

It's certainly not a new idea. Many Christians who accept the theory of evolution use this very rationale. It's certainly not an idea that science can disprove.

But are you trying to say scientists are advocating ToE under the logic of 'There IS a God, and evolution is the way He would make life'? Because that's just stupid! No-one is making that argument. Science says nothing about the existence of the supernatural, which is way it can be accepted by theists, pantheists, deists and atheists alike.

Except, of course, if your religious beliefs actively prohibit you from accepting certain ideas, no matter how well evidenced they are...

Richie:But are you trying to say scientists are advocating ToE under the logic of 'There IS a God, and evolution is the way He would make life'? Because that's just stupid! No-one is making that argument

Maybe this post aimed at the theistic evolution crowd. On the otherhand ,I bet it works in Dr Hunter's mind for the godless atheists as well. You see, their "god" is the deification of godless explanations.

For one thing, it's based on the premise that there is a God! That is beyond the realm of scientific verification. Science cannot presume that there are any supernatural forces. Which is exactly why they assume methodological naturalism - something you appear to take a rather dim view on!

This video is not stating the objective case for ToE. He is just saying he think IF THERE WERE A GOD, then evolution would be a more elegant method of creation than poofing things into existence - a personal opinion.

"Engineering an experiment to study the effects of gravity does not mean you have direct control over gravity. That is what I am trying to make clear."====

Of course. Engineering a scientific experiment to study the effects of gravity would definitely be science.----

Ritchie:

"Engineering an experiment to study the effects of evolution does not mean you have direct control over evolution. That should be a rather simple comparison."====

There is no comparison in this case between the Gerald Joyce and your gravity experiments with the exception of your vivid imagination.----

Ritchie:

"So no, the experiment does not demonstrate intelligent design, any more than my dropping apples experiment proves angels push invisible apples to the ground."====

Well let's recap. Evolution's foremost religious requirement is "No Intelligenve Allowed". In actual fact it is priority number one on the list of your side's articles of faith. It is purposeless, directionless, has absolutely no goals or intended outcomes.

What did Gerald Joyce admit. He admitted first engineering an artificial Patented lifeless enzymatic molecule(not bacteria as you originally falsely insisted). He admitted to creating an imagined artificial ecosystem which was controlled and run by a specially engineered and designed computer program. The test tube was actual fact another device manufactured and patented by Gerald Joyce and team. They admitted to step by step guiding and in some cases forcing the molecules to go a direction they wanted, since these lifeless molecules would never have done anything in the wild, but lay there. Again read their own words. I'd actually provide some, but then I'd get the "Quote Mining Card" thrown at me.

Now when you dump the biased heartfelt interpretative Religious Testimonials of where Joyce and company attempt to take liberties by describing their imagined RNA World of molecules EVOLVING, COMMPETING in FOOD COMPETIONS, some having more OFFSPRING than others, etc. What we actually observe is nothing to do with evolution in the strictest of dogma sense, but intelligent designers manipulating, rigging, forcing and directing with goal oriented purpose and intent of which is nothing more than a virtual board game being pimped as reality. The ONLY thing going on in that experiment was proof of "Intelligent Design".

The other entertaining thing was the righteous indignation which came from Cornelius' Professor Pedant's mouth two threads below where he insisted Evolution was ONLY about life once it became so and moved forward from that point onwards. He insisted it had ZERO to do with Abiogenesis or RNA-World. Yet Joyce and gang actually talk about EVOLVING LIFELESS MOLECULES and evolving the building blocks of life. The other blantant lie about this definition shell game is that evolution is strictly dealing strictly with the science of Biology, yet Joyce is a Chemist.

And to quote anyway, what did they proudly and arrogantly proclaim once again:

Professor Gerald Joyce:"This is evolution at the level of molecules as a fact, not a theory."

Professor Gerald Joyce:"Evolution is not a theory for us chemists."

If I quoted any of the science writers of any of the commentary in any of the journals which deal with Joyce's bogus life experiments, it actually becomes worse, but what Scientist wants to correct a science writer who over-inflates the Scientist's ego. Certainly not a Craig Venter also of La Jolla.

"You think I have religious preconceptions? And exactly what do you think those might be?"====

Absolutely. It's called faith statement making and most of your posts are loaded with them, as are many science papers.----

Ritchie:

"Science says nothing about the existence of supernatural agents/forces."====

Not true. Natural Selection is unwittingly always depicted as a supernatural entity for which no one can ever logically and rationally explain just how and what it does in creating amazing complex mechanisms. Take a look at the definition of "supernatural"

a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit) - [ and Natural Selection likewise fits perfectly here - a sort of omnipresent animist type of blind force god ]

Not true. Natural Selection is unwittingly always depicted as a supernatural entity for which no one can ever logically and rationally explain just how and what it does in creating amazing complex mechanisms.

Only by clueless scientifically ignorant boobs like yourself. To science, natural selection is merely the name given to the result of the empirically observed process of differential reproductive competition.

We all know by now you're way too mouthy/lazy/both to ever bother learning about the solid sciences you love to attack. Makes you look pretty stupid to boot.

"Only by clueless scientifically ignorant boobs like yourself. To science, natural selection is merely the name given to the result of the empirically observed process of differential reproductive competition.

We all know by now you're way too mouthy/lazy/both to ever bother learning about the solid sciences you love to attack. Makes you look pretty stupid to boot."====

If there were ever an example of scientific genius put into eloquent words.

*eyes rolling*----

Thorton the IDist:

"Biologists create self-replicating RNA molecule"

"Enter tC19Z. Built by Philipp Holliger and colleagues, it is an RNA enzyme that functions like a self-replicator."====

Did anybody else notice where the experiment showed the superiority of Naturalism over Intelligent design ???

How about the fact that this experiment, and others like Gerald Joyce's, show the plausibility of chemical Evolution at the molecular level ??? ----

Thorton:

"Of course this is the part where you scream "but it was designed!!" a minute after telling us such things couldn't exist."====

Here, I don't normally do this, because usually when an evolutionist insist I tell him/her of how I think the experiment should be handled, I tell them it's not my responsibility to help them prove their FAITH. However I will go ahead and break my rule and help you out here. Here's what you do. To create(sorry evolve) an honest experiement, you need to imitate nature. First, you'll have to take your intelligently guiding hands off the apparatus. Next, wait for millions of years in boredom and depression while nothing happens. ----

Thorton:

"When will you be providing those details of the mechansism of ID? You're run from the question five time now. Please stop evading and answer, or be honest and admit IDC has no answers."====

Not a problem. You just did it again there genius. Got anymore Intelligent Designing, manipulating, rigging experiments you want to share there Thorton the IDer ???

Dr Hunter :Also known as a religious belief.It is my opinion that my saw will cut thru a board, is this a religious belief? I don't expect that god will cut the board,after all I am not sure he does manual labor.Is this a religious belief? Am I being a theological naturalist?

It is my opinion that my saw will cut thru a board, is this a religious belief?

No.

I don't expect that god will cut the board,after all I am not sure he does manual labor. Is this a religious belief?

Yes, but irrelevant. Darwin’s grandfather said this:

The world itself might have been generated, rather than created; that is, it might have been gradually produced from very small beginnings, increasing by the activity of its inherent principles, rather than by a sudden evolution by the whole by the Almighty fiat. What a magnificent idea of the infinite power of the great architect! The Cause of Causes! Parent of Parents! Ens Entium! For if we may compare infinities, it would seem to require a greater infinity of power to cause the causes of effects, than to cause the effects themselves.

Is that religious?

When equine species were crossed with species from distant parts of the world, the stripes of the offspring did not resemble the parents but other species of the genus. Darwin argued that the view that such species are independent creations “makes the works of God a mere mockery and deception.”

But, crucially, not one that lies at the heart of the theory of evolution! Just one that lies at the heart of this video!

All you're showing is that someone CAN HAVE a personal opinion (ie. religious belief) ABOUT evolution, not that the theory IS a religious belief (rather than being the established scientific theory it, in fact, is). Quite a significant difference there...

What if it is? Yet again, all you are showing is that Darwin HAD RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. Which no-one is denying! The point is whether ToE is BASED ON those (or any) religious beliefs, which it is not. It is a perfectly scientific theory.

Want a litmus test? Here's an easy one: can a theist, a deist and an atheist, all accept ToE?

Yes, they can. An atheist can believe that random mutation and natural selection are entirely blind, natural forces. A theist can believe random mutation and natural selection are the means by which God simply creates the diversity of life on Earth. A deist can believe that God set the universe just so at the moment of the Big Bang, knowing exactly how evolution would shape life on Earth.

See? The theory of evolution mandates no religious position - that of theism, polytheism, deism, or atheism.

"There is no comparison in this case between the Gerald Joyce and your gravity experiments with the exception of your vivid imagination."

No, there is. You are simply refusing to see it. Engineering an experiment does NOT imply that you have direct control over the force you are studying! That is the simple, salient point. It's true for my gravity experiment and it's true for Joyce's. Yet you continue to insist Joyce's experiment demonstrates ID. This is as nonsensical as suggesting my apple experiment demonstrates divine interference with gravity.

You mean, SCIENCE requires MN. ToE ALSO requires MN - because it is a scientific theory! But it is not in the slightest unusual or unscientific in doing so! Please, do yourself an almighty favour and think on this single fact. It is essential that you take this in.

Oh, and it's not a religious requirement. It's a practical one.

"Well let's recap..."

Yes, lets. Joyce et al. "used artificial RNA enzymes based on molecules originally developed by David Bartel and Jack Szostak". These enzymes were not 'alive' by any strict definition, but they did "have the ability to catalyze the joining of other RNA molecules, similar to a large protein known as an RNA polymerase... an RNA molecule that performed this reaction would automatically be copied to produce molecular 'progeny.'"

So the enzymes may not strictly be alive, but they could, in a sense, reproduce.

They then placed the enzymes in a specially designed environment, along with the microfuel the enzymes need to 'reproduce', 'directing' the evolution of the enzymes merely by adding progressively lower concentrations of this fuel at set intervals, creating periods of 'starvation' through which only the fittest RNA were able to out-compete their rivals.

Then, when the RNA reached a certain limit, they isolated a random 10th of the population and used this to repeat the whole process. Rinse and repeat 500 times, and see what happens.

And what did happen? They ended up with 'supermolecules' that "could grow faster and faster on a continually dwindling source of chemical fuel."

In effect, rather like Lenski's bacteria study. Did Joyce et al. consciously intervene at a genetic level to give the RNA genetic variation? No. Did they create mutations inside the RNA which would enable them to reproduce with greater or lesser efficiancy? No. Did they deliberately select the 'best' or the 'worst' reproducers to go on to the 'next generation' when they seperated the 10th from the rest each time? No.

THAT might have been intelligent design. But it is not what happened. They left the RNA to evolve by themselves and at their own pace. This is not intelligent design.

"The other entertaining thing was the righteous indignation which came from Cornelius' Professor Pedant's mouth two threads below where he insisted Evolution was ONLY about life once it became so and moved forward from that point onwards."

Technically Pedant was wrong to say so, though I do get what he means. In truth, all you need for evolution is self-replicating molecules. Evolution started at the first self-replicating molecule, whether it was technically 'alive' or not. So yes, in this very narrow, select area, ToE has its roots in chemistry rather than biology. However, that really only demonstrates what a fine line seperates the two fields. This is not a green light to confuse ToE with the evolution of non-living (or, if you want to be more technical, non-self-replicating) objects. People say 'ToE is concerned only with living things' because it is generally true, and simpler. Technically, yes it is more accurate to say 'ToE is concerned with self-replicating things'. If you want to make that distinction, then go ahead. It's not one I'll lose sleep over.

"Evolution is not a theory for us chemists." Quite so. It can be directly witnessed. In such experiments as this one. Joyce's experiment took about 70 hours. With enough patience you could sit and witness it yourself inside 3 days.

"Absolutely. It's called faith statement making and most of your posts are loaded with them, as are many science papers."

And what exactly ARE my religious preconceptions? That there is no God? That there is a CERTAIN SORT of God? That there is a God, and that he'd only do XYZ, but not ABC? You tell me...

"Not true. Natural Selection is unwittingly always depicted as a supernatural entity for which no one can ever logically and rationally explain just how and what it does in creating amazing complex mechanisms."

Totally wrong. Natural selection is a NATURAL force. And it is not at all difficult to explain - there is competition between all living things for resources, be they food, habitat, sexual partners, etc. Between competitors, the ones best suited to win will probably be the ones to win (and thus, survive and reproduce). Ta-dah! There we go. That's natural selection. Not difficult, not complicated, and most certainly not supernatural.

The video lays out an argument that an omnipotent and omniscient God would not create imperfection, but evolution would be a more elegant method of creation and also explain the imperfections in nature.

One of the reasons the video "kinda" gives is that the human eye is not "perfect"... it's not as good as a cats. So it goes that an omniscient and omnipotent God would not create such an eye. His argument follows that if God used evolution then this would explain the imperfections. The author seems to think that evolution would be more elegant for God to have created through. It's the old argument that Ken Miller and others have made for years.

But the whole argument in the video is a logical fallacy...

What makes them think that an omnipotent and omniscient God was not capable of setting up the initial parameters of nature so that evolution produced "perfection"?

Would not imperfection in animals - even if God used evolution - render God less than omnipotent and omniscient?

The problem with this argument is the same old tired argument as before and that is evolutionists seem bound and determined to limit God to making life "perfect" according to their muddled expectations. An offshoot of which says that eugenics is good because it eliminates the "imperfect".

The whole argument about what an omnipotent creator would do is a logical fallacy even based on their notion of God not allowing imperfection... they just didn't think it all the way through.

The whole truth said, "Then why do you and other religious people constantly use that argument? "

--

Specifically... the old argument that some evolutionists use (such as Ken Miller, Francis Collins) that imperfection in nature contradict the notion of direct creation by an omnipotent Creator. My point is that if one is fixated on a narrow definition of physical perfection in nature as the primary goal of omnipotence, then surely the omnipotent God could have fixed the initial parameters of nature so that even evolution yielded perfection. They just pushed the issue back in time and didn't think their argument through... but the Darwinian mind sucking vortex tends to do that.

No. Not quite. We can indeed perceive apparently inefficient design in nature - that is, design which appears inefficient to us! And ToE does provide a satisfying explanation for this.

What I am saying is that if anyone did postulate a being with truly godly capabilities, then there is an easy explanation. 'Apparent flaws aren't really flaws - we are just limited by our human knowledge. God knows better' is an explanation which is always possibly true. Of anything. At all.

Note the difference here is that 'Apparent flaws aren't really flaws...' isn't really an explanation, of course, since it could be applied to absolutely anything. Also, the reverse argument is also true - anything in nature could be as bad as it could possibly be while still being functional.

Ritchie, evolution supposedly explains examples of extreme and elegant efficiency as well. Not really, but the hand-waving story of evolution can accommodate any outcome.

Evolutionists have an absolutely horrible track record when it comes to identifying supposed flaws, only to find out different later. Their fixated on narrow parameters of efficiency. Like their latest fiasco with the recurrent largneal nerve. Pure hogwash.

"Ritchie, evolution supposedly explains examples of extreme and elegant efficiency as well. Not really, but the hand-waving story of evolution can accommodate any outcome."

It certainly cannot. ToE is highly falsifiable.

"Evolutionists have an absolutely horrible track record when it comes to identifying supposed flaws, only to find out different later."

I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to, but that sounds very much like scientific progress to me - adapt your views with the introduction of new evidence. That is exactly how science shopuld behave. It takes a religious mentality to think you have all the answers to everything and cannot possibly be wrong about anything at all.

Cornelius G. Hunter is a graduate of the University of Illinois where
he earned a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology. He is
Adjunct Professor at Biola University and author of the award-winning Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Hunter’s other books include Darwin’s Proof, and his newest book Science’s Blind Spot
(Baker/Brazos Press). Dr. Hunter's interest in the theory of evolution
involves the historical and theological, as well as scientific, aspects
of the theory. His website is http://www.darwins-god.blogspot.com/